It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Were Indians Terrorists?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 11:01 AM
link   
So the Iraqi "terrorists" are not terrorists. But they are, according to Bush&Co/the people who worship the ground Bush walks on.




posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yorga
Just a point of fact, it was the french that taught the "Injuns" how to scalp.


That's actually not true.


www.native-languages.org...
Scalping--cutting off the scalp of a dead enemy as proof of his demise-- was common practice throughout North America before colonists got here. It is described in Indian oral histories, and preserved scalps were found at archaeological sites. Europeans learned to scalp enemies from the Indians. (The European custom was to cut off people's heads for proof/trophies, originally, but scalps are easier to transport and preserve, so the colonists quickly switched to the Indian method.)



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by LA_Maximus
The Injuns that scalped innocents and burned homes were terrorists and they paid the price for not wanting to share the land. Y'all can thank the US Cavalry for the good work.

Yea, great job in killing the Indian population.

Great show of a genocide.

Great charge of the US Cavalry and General Custer.

What a glorious piece of US history. For everyone to know.

"Scalping innocents and burnig homes"?

Yes, probably drunk of american whiskey and payed by the cowboys to do it.

Indians were in tribal war before. And they were "scalping" each other before any white men knew what "scalping" really means.



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by AceOfBase
That's what's happening in Iraq.
The majority of the bombing have been aimed at Iraqi soldiers, police and recruits who have joined the fight against Iraqi resistors.

No they've joined to protect their homeland and restore order to their country. Stopping the insurgents is just an annoying problem they have to deal with now.



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by AceOfBase

Originally posted by Yorga
Just a point of fact, it was the french that taught the "Injuns" how to scalp.


That's actually not true.


www.native-languages.org...
Scalping--cutting off the scalp of a dead enemy as proof of his demise-- was common practice throughout North America before colonists got here. It is described in Indian oral histories, and preserved scalps were found at archaeological sites. Europeans learned to scalp enemies from the Indians. (The European custom was to cut off people's heads for proof/trophies, originally, but scalps are easier to transport and preserve, so the colonists quickly switched to the Indian method.)




I stand corrected, thanks for pointing that out!



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Yorga you need to get stand corrected on many things.... Least of them is the fact that the Army today is exactly like the Army against the Indians.

Iraqis are not Terrorists and if they are Indians are too and if they are well damn I guess I am just one also...

Fight American Imperialism from Inside and Out



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Whats the difference between a terrorist and a guerrilla fighter?


A valid question, deserving of a "hopefully" valid answer...

The difference is in targets. A guerrilla fighter deliberately targets military targets and personnel of the enemy. A terrorist deliberately targets civilian targets and personnel. Stick with that and it should be easy to tell the difference.

Note the deliberately word, as that is the key here...collateral damage will always occur in warfare...



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by 00PS
Yorga you need to get stand corrected on many things.... Least of them is the fact that the Army today is exactly like the Army against the Indians.

Iraqis are not Terrorists and if they are Indians are too and if they are well damn I guess I am just one also...

Fight American Imperialism from Inside and Out

The Indians had a reason to fight.

What are these insurgents fighting for? To drive the "invaders" out? Please, their acts are just prolonging our stay there and they know that (if they don't then they aren't very smart). If they wanted their country back, they would stop destroying it and join the 99% of other Iraqis and help rebuild it.


(btw, it's safe to say that alot (who knows, maybe even a majority) of the insurgents aren't even Iraqi)



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 11:42 AM
link   
I know, alot of them are Saudi Arabian. So were the attackers, like 14 out of 19 were on 9/11. Gee, and yet we invade Iraq........

Ok, deliberately, what if the civillians are the ones fighting? We recruit Iraqis, so Iraqis that sign up but not yet trained are civillians, so do those make up some of the civillian deaths even if they were gonna train to become soldiers? Same with Iraqi police/current army, are they considered civillians in death counts since they are not American or Bristish r whatever other white race?



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 11:50 AM
link   
I have two points to make here.

First, to judge any past (or indeed, future) society based upon the current mores is folly and arrogance. Every conceivable factor was so radically different that you can't possibly understand or empathize with the people of that time. We can - and should- learn from history, but to judge is just plain wrong.

Second, here's a newsflash for you. People have always fought. They always will fight.

You know why? Because that's what we do instinctively. It was required for survival in a harsh world. We are (un)fortunate enough to live in a society today where we don't have to struggle for survival on a daily basis against a harsh and uncaring exterior world. We then turn our natural aggression inward and fight against ourselves.

As long as we humans have any kind of desire and any kind of free will there will be conflict. I have my thoughts, you have yours. We will never think the same, nor should we. Competition is what makes us better and advances us as a species.

If we get to a point where physical struggles are not longer the norm we still engage in other struggles. Emotional, social, psychological, ethical.



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok

Whats the difference between a terrorist and a guerrilla fighter?


A valid question, deserving of a "hopefully" valid answer...

The difference is in targets. A guerrilla fighter deliberately targets military targets and personnel of the enemy. A terrorist deliberately targets civilian targets and personnel. Stick with that and it should be easy to tell the difference.

Note the deliberately word, as that is the key here...collateral damage will always occur in warfare...

I find a problem with your statement.

Militant islamic fundamentalism is the answer to expansionistic western corporativism. That is terrorism. When speaking about terrorism people like to go back in Middle East History and remember the extreme islamic sect of The Hassassini, led by the Old Man In The Mountain. They were the first to use murder for political goals. They were a sect of assassins, mostly hired to kill local MUSLIM rulers, kings, pharaos; almost NEVER they killed any of the western crusaders. They were known for their sacrifice and devotion to their master. When they were sent on a mission, they always carried it out with a single dagger, and never tried to escape; and were always killed on their missions. It is out of this, and only out of this respect, that the terrorism can be associated with these assassins, that were prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice to their master, their leader. It is a warning from the past, a warning that in the 900 A.D. people that live in the lands of Iraq, Syria and Afganistan were trained assassins, led by the Men In The Mountain. They are the textbook and the founding stone of the modern phenomenon known as "terrorism". As I said before:

Militant Islamic Fundamentalism is the answer to Expansionistic Western Corporativism.

You sound worried about the innocent civilians that are killed and die in war. That is the price of War. The question here is who wants this War and why does he want it? That is why innocent civilians die. Not because of terrorists, but because of neverending War. In Congo 3.3 million people have died since the start of their civil war. Why doesnt nobody help them? You know how many "terrorist groups" are there? You know how many innocent people die every day there? Or is your hunt for terrorism blinding your very eyes and you see nothing about the misery and suffering of these people?

[edit on 17/3/05 by Souljah]



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Not berating you here, but...

James the Lesser, I see you are still struggling with what is the difference between an insurgent, freedom fighter, guerilla, and a terrorist, correct?
I believe the answer(s) and posted information to help you, or any others who wanted to understand, was given in your past ATS topic thread:
Insurgent vs Freedom Fighter

A 'self' induced indepth search and research could have and should have been adequately attempted by you with the starting information given within your original topic, as linked above?

Being that the two topics you have created are like topics, if not topics that could be merged into one, there is a underline reason and motivation that you have created the two. Care to explain or is that self-evident?

I will assert again, that true understanding of the difference comes from putting aside bias' and making a wholehearted search into the difference for there are differences to be had. The difference is not relegated to mere dictionary difference, if any, but the methods and goals of each. Place this within the context of the history of each time period you are drawing from, also. As far as I am concerned, your next possible topic would be "Were Cavemen terrorist or freedom fighters?"

Be real, research it, keep historical context within its proper historical context and the answer will appear. Again, the difference lies within the methods used and the goals of each.





seekerof

[edit on 17-3-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by cargo
Did the invaders use biological weapons (WMDs) against the native Indians? (smallpox blankets)


in point of fact YES they did not only in blankets either. there is one case where the british gave the indians "medicin" to bad it was actualy tins that contained the virus. there was actualy a small documentury piece done on this a couple of years ago (i can't remember for certain but i believe it may have been "a canadian moment" or simmiler tv short). i have only seen it run once or twice, gee i wonder why

as for the comment in the first post about the indians fighting in civilian garb. that is incorrect they wore their "uniforms". would not war paint be classified as a uniform for them?

in case of point both the indians AND the american forces used terror tactics on each other. as to who started it first you could point fingers all day and still have no clear answer.

you can probably find a point at every time period where terror tactics were used.the norse can certanly be called terrorists. those oh so fun viking raids. it is nowhere near a new phonominum altho i believe the term terrorist is fairly recent.



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by 00PS
[Yorga you need to get stand corrected on many things....]

Oops I readily admit when I am wrong, thats what men do.
Just as I will admit I am wrong if you ever make an intelligent
argument to prove me so. Since there is no chance in hell of that
ever happening then I apologize ahead of time for making you feel
inferior enough that you deam it necessary to try and knock me down
to your level.

[Least of them is the fact that the Army today is exactly like the Army against the Indians.]

What happen between the US and the Native Americans has nothing to do with the US Army of today or the situation in Iraq. To insist they are the same is reaching for straws, even for you. Recorded history is full of examples where a people took over anothers land and slaughtered the natives. I never said that America was perfect nor that we did not have episodes in our history to be ashamed of, America has made mistakes and
moved forward. Being part native american and a veteran I can certainly see the absurdity in your remark. If you were one tenth the intellect you think you are then you would also.

[Iraqis are not Terrorists and if they are Indians are too and if they are well damn I guess I am just one also...]

When did I ever say that John Q. Iraqi was a terrorist? Radical Islamist that strap bombs around their waste to kill in the name of Jihad are terrorists.
Idiots that believe Allah will give them 40 virgins or 40 young boys, which ever is their liking, if they commit suicide are terrorists. Anyone that condones and supports this lunacy is a terrorist. If you fall in that category, being an american citizen, then you are lower than a terrorist. I can as a soldier at least admire the balls it takes for these murderers to blow themselves up. But I cannot stomach an American hiding behind the premise of social difference trash mouthing an Institution as honorable as the US Military, in any form. Anyone who claims that American got what she deserved on 9/11 and our soldiers are no better than this scum might as well be a terrorist. For 25 years I had the priviledge to serve my country in its armed forces. I have four campaign ribbons, the Silver Star for galantry under fire and a purple heart for wounds received in combat. Spent two years in rehab learning how to walk again. If they would let me go back in, I would reinlist today. There is not an American soldier anywhere that I would not trust with my life and consider it an honor to serve with. When you are anyone else on this board insults these men and women, I take it personaly. I will defend them from the likes of you till their is not another breathe in my body. And if I stand young man it sure as hell want be because you corrected me, It'll be because I am saluting my country, my flag, my fellow soldiers and my Commander In Chief. If you or anyone else on ATS doesn't like what I said then you can kiss my red, white and blue a**. One shot, one kill. Hooorrrrrrah



[edit on 17-3-2005 by Yorga]

[edit on 17-3-2005 by Yorga]



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 02:48 PM
link   
>The Injuns that scalped innocents and burned homes were terrorists and they paid the price for not wanting to share the land. Y'all can thank the US Cavalry for the good work.

This type of ignorance is what makes Americans today look like fools. Terrorism has always been a part of our culture for better or for worse. I believe that these type of acts will only continue as people forget the dimensions and complexity associated with others beliefs.



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 07:09 PM
link   
OOPS, stop stalking Yorga, and please, if you are posting, make it helpful to the discussion, not "nah nah nah nah nah nah, you got proven wrong! nah nah nah nah nah nah!"



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 08:52 PM
link   
Well livinlife and Souljah....my "cowboy" mentality is what makes me stronger than you. Im all for violence to solve serious problems when words fail....just as my country America uses violence around the world to kill our blood enemies.

The Indians were in our way and got slapped aside, Sure we burned down some tee-pee's and gunned down some blood-thirsty tribes, but whoever said building a country was a bed of roses?

They had it....we wanted it and we took it. Period! The strong survive and the losers whine like babies. Our ancestors built this into a great nation that Im proud to live in.

Maximu§



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Well, Maximus, YOU definitely are a terrorist, and a barbarian to boot. With your logic, I can take any woman I want by force because I am strong and she is weak. That makes it ok, right?

Seriously, though, we all are possible terrorists. Has anyone ever checked out the Patriot Acts? If you complain too much, use drugs, chew food aggresively, or break any law, felony or misdemeanor, you are a terrorist. But, I guess by their own logic, the Bush Administration peeps are terrorists...



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 09:56 PM
link   
Maybe the word terrorist should be defined as "one of an organisation of Freedom fighters without a sanctioned country to back them".

There are a lot of crimes heralded as Terrorist attacks, despite the fact that it was some yahoo who flipped. These are never correctly identified as it reduces the impact of the word / event in the eyes of the media.

If there is only one (s)he is a nut, and if they have a country they are an army.



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 12:22 AM
link   


Originally posted by LA_Maximus
The Indians were in our way and got slapped aside, Sure we burned down some tee-pee's and gunned down some blood-thirsty tribes, but whoever said building a country was a bed of roses?

Maximu§


Well this proves you're a racist! - The only true form of terrorism... You disgust me... At least the Native Americans could live in a society according to natures laws... You imperialistic, masacist, terrorists out there wouldn't understand that... Pig headed patriotism is what that is, and its not even for a worthy cause.



Originally posted by dancer
"Maybe the word terrorist should be defined as "one of an organisation of Freedom fighters without a sanctioned country to back them".


Thats the best explanation of a "terrorist" I've ever heard...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join